Government Charity?

Question

It seems to me that often times the government talks about needing to do x for y group. They justify this by saying that they are being compassionate. It seems to me though that for individual growth we should be given the opertunity to use our money to preform charitible acts without being coerced into doing so by the government after all what does it benifit society if we give by force rather then through our own desire. It creates a society where in people resent giving charity because they are having it taken from them. It turns an act of generocity into an act of theft. It also creates a sense of entitlement on the side of the recivier wherein they feel that they deserve to have the government give them the charity instead of an attitude of gratitude when people who aren't coreced give help.

Answer 1

indeed. these are very wise words.

Answer 2

I believe the less government involvement with non-profit organizations, the better.  When you accept government funding, there are always strings attached, more red tape and hoops to jump through--and seem to be more slower at reacting to an issue.

You need to have a heart for helping the poor, along with discernment and the flexibility to make judgment calls for situations that don't fit a certain criteria.  With government regulations, there are strict rules and guidelines that if not followed to the letter, your funding could be pulled.  

The feeling of entitlement will always happen if people are not held accountable for their choices in life and actions--it's human nature.  I don't know if there is a good answer for this?!

Answer 3

Good speech and I agree with much of  it but what is the question?

Answer 4

In answer to your added question, I would say that it is both.

To explain:  Although your argument works well in describing individual charity (i.e.: welfare, etc.), it breaks down when describing other areas of charity.  Even though individuals do give to charity, there is rarely enough money from any particular individual to make a major impact on the funding required for many beneficial programs that help in way too many areas to describe.  This is where the government comes in.

One can believe that these grants are because the goverment is being 'compassionate,' but that would be an inaccurate statement inasmuch as the grant programs offered cover far more than simply human services.  Government grant programs fund research and development into areas that need to be researched, but would otherwise not be because the organizations wanting to research them would be spending far too much time gathering the $50-$100 here and there to concentrate on doing the job.  Also, by funding some of these programs, the government is furthering the public good with research and development into new and unknown areas that would be unlikely to garner support from individual donors due to their sheer complexity or extremely long term vision.

Grant programs, like DARPA, as an example, fund new frontiers in science and technology (not just military, by the way), new medical advancements, new types of crime reduction, new treatments for a variety of diseases, development in new areas of business, new non-lethal methods of stopping dangerous criminals,....  the list is almost endless!

In summary, these projects and programs would not be able to be funded without government intervention as the organizations attempting such innovative ideas would forever be so bogged down in fundraising that they would never be able to get to researching, developing and trying these new ideas that advance our civilization every day.

It's all how you look at it.

Answer 5

i know a few (and i work for one)

red cross (they do the most international work i know because i work for arc)

united way

salvation army